"I think the only thing that speaks is the law," she said. "The only thing we have going for us as Indigenous women and Indigenous people is that we can go into a courtroom and we can assert an inherent right over our bodies." [Debbie Ironbow quoted in David Shield, "'It steals your dreams': Saskatoon woman not sure whether she will join forced-sterilization lawsuit" October 11 2017, CBC News Online]

Both Robson’s short jot and Manian’s article are well worth reading, in terms of understanding coerced sterilization and legal approaches to these violations. Robson’s short but informative note concludes with these lines:

The story Manian ultimately tells is one of courage and resistance. As we confront renewed efforts to control the reproductive and sexual rights of immigrants, people of color, and all women, it is a story that is worth reading—and retelling.

Another place that the Saskatchewan case could take us is to the broader question of racism in health care that continues to be the experience of Indigenous people across the country. But for those interested particularly in “coerced sterilization,” here are some recent articles from a variety of national contexts.

“…a graduating student who has shown bravery and intelligence in bringing attention to issues of importance for feminism(s). The Award winner will have displayed leadership qualities including the ability and willingness to engage in critical &/or constructive difficult conversations.”

Nominated by a long list of folks – including students from every year of the JD, an alumna, a professor and two lawyers from two different clinical programs – Michelle Miles was a summer intern at the Human Rights Legal Support Centre, part of the Feminist Legal Advocacy program at Osgoode, took a leadership role with the Osgoode Feminist Collective, and served as the Vice President of the Osgoode Black Law Student’s Association.

She’ll be articling at a family/criminal law firm in Toronto and continuing to be an advocate for women and vulnerable communities.

Here’s what some of her nominators wrote about Michelle:

“…always quick to raise the voices of others, to initiate and guide much-need and rarely-had conversations, and to call in rather than call out.”

“….[the] recommendations to combat anti-Black racism at Osgoode are the result of Michelle’s diligent activism, organization and guidance.”

“…compassionate, dedicated, and an utter joy and relief to be around.”

“…Michelle vocally and eloquently defended equity seeking groups and their needs. It is one thing to do so when everyone in the room is nodding with you. It’s a completely different situation when you keep getting pushback from other students, who do not come to the table with the same life experiences as you, and from lawyers, who have a lot more authority and influence than you.”

“Michelle is THE feminist advocate many of us associate with our time at Osgoode.”

“I don’t think anyone is as committed or as patient or as tireless as Michelle Miles.”

“Our profession will only benefit from having a resilient Black woman like Michelle in the lead.”

“For all that she has done in her three years at Osgoode (and it is more than most people know and more than Michelle herself will acknowledge), she deserves the IFLS Vanguard Award.”

_____________________________________________________

A further thank you from the IFLS to this amazing alum of Osgoode. Pretty sure students don’t always appreciate how much their work can mean for their professors. Putting this post together provided mid June inspiration through thinking about the hard conversations Michelle pushed for, and the ways her feminist peers appreciated that work.

[If you’re at another school and thinking ‘maybe we could have one of these awards’, here’s a page describing what it’s for – we spent some time thinking about this and some of the details might be of interest to you: https://ifls.osgoode.yorku.ca/what-we-do/ifls-graduating-student-vanguard-award/ ]

To make a long story short, Ontario’s new premier is making good on his promise to scrap the sex ed curriculum we’re currently using in Ontario….leaving us to fall back on the 1998 version of the curriculum…which was pre smart phones and snapchat let alone important legal changes – doesn’t talk about gender diversity or sexual diversity – and doesn’t use the word consent. So:

Here’s sex educator Nadine Thornhill’s @NadineThornhill plan to put the content of the new – now old – curriculum into a set of videos on her youtube channel.

Also, all the thank yous to everyone who’s supported #SaveSexEd project. The series will launch in September on my YouTube channel. You can help by subscribing to my channel and asking folks you know to do the same! https://t.co/s9j9ukJm0j

The line between standing up for survivors and reversing the presumption of innocence can seem perilously thin. We should be wary of the temptation to gloss over the question of evidence too easily, or take a judge’s words out of context, even in the heat of justified anger. The verdict in this particular case was not wrong; to convict on the evidence as it stood probably would have been.

That the evidence didn’t stand up in court does not mean that the many brave women who came forward were collectively lying about their experiences of violence with Ghomeshi. Justice Horkins himself recognized in his decision (problematic as it was, more on that below), that a finding of not guilty does not mean that the events described did not happen – a reality all too common in cases of sexual assault. Here lies the problem. Here is the good reason we have to be angry: the total disconnect between the law and women’s actual lives.

If Justice Horkins claims that “[c]ourts must guard against applying false stereotypes concerning the expected conduct of complainants”, then why does he repeatedly rebuke the complainants for not recognizing the relevance of this conduct? And why is he so confident in concluding that the complainants’ behaviour is “odd” and “out of harmony” with the alleged assault.

If it is “entirely natural” for survivors to become involved in advocacy work, then why does he feel comfortable speculating that such work might give a witness the motive to lie.

Tamera Burnett is a student in Osgoode Hall Law School’s PhD program, where she is working on how to approach sentencing in sexual assault trials through an intersectional feminist lens. She’s been following the Jian Ghomeshi sexual assault trial and she’s generously offered us her thoughts on the topic.

Some Overarching Comments on the Ghomeshi Trial from a Feminist Perspective

“This is and remains a trial about Mr. Ghomeshi’s conduct. What Lucy did or how she felt in the aftermath does not change that essential fact…. Violence against women is not about the behaviour of the women; it is not about how they cope with an assault, or the details they commit to memory in the aftermath any more than it is about what they wore or how much they had to drink.”

Such aggressive cross examination also ignores how memory works. Not only do memories fade over time, a very relevant fact when dealing with assaults that took place over a decade ago, but trauma influenceshow events are committed to memory. That witnesses did not remember what make of car Ghomeshi drove, or whether or not they had hair extensions at the time of their assault is not a sign that their memories were false. Badgering witnesses about these extraneous details doesn’t tell the court anything about the assault in question, and credibility should not be accorded to only those with perfect recollection.